Pope Francis Calls for Abolition of Death Penalty

[Micosil]

The Catholic Church does not “support” the death penalty…what it does support is the right of the state to have recourse to use the death penalty

I understand what you’re saying here, but consider the same argument for abortion, to play the devil’s advocate – The Catholic Church does not “support” abortion… what it does support is the right of the woman to have recourse to have an abortion.

The logic for abortion doesn’t fly, as the Church is opposed to abortion in all circumstances and vocally takes a stance against it, state-sanctioned or not.

So, based on this, can one say that the Church does “support” capital punishment, but implicitly?

 

[pnewton]

A contradiction would be something to the effect that the death penalty was intrinsically evil. The comments made over the last forty years do not take this approach or make this claim. Rather, the teacher (the popes) is applying a principles to modern situations. All of the talk of the past, one hundred percent of it, is not relevant. The Church does not teach and has never taught something as Machiavellian as a murder* must* be put to death and that letting such a one to live is intrinsically sinful.

 

[pnewton]

So, based on this, can one say that the Church does “support” capital punishment, but implicitly?

Yes, this statement could be made, though it has more accuracy as made in the past. I like that you put the word “support” in quotes, as the way that word is defined makes the statement true or false, especially with the modifier “implicitly.” One can make the argument that just teaching the moral allowance is support. This is different that what we normal consider support, sending money, executioners, pats on the back for a job well done.

Obviously the difference in abortion is that it ***is ***an intrinsic evil, something always immoral in and of itself.

 

[Micosil]

Obviously the difference in abortion is that it ***is ***an intrinsic evil, something always immoral in and of itself.

To continue playing the devil’s advocate a bit…

That makes sense in principle; however, what then of cases when an “abortion” (I put it in quotes, and you’ll see why in a second) is performed due to an ectopic pregnancy, when the embryo implants itself not in the uterus, but in the fallopian tube?

Is this covered by the principle of double effect?

Would the principle of double effect not also apply to the execution of incorrigible, violent criminals who show no signs of getting rid of their sinful tendencies?

 

[dudleysharp]

Dudley,any of us may make mistakes in good faith. In fact,we learn together.
And it does make a difference when I read a medicine piece written by a lawyer,for example. Not to disqualify,but not assuming a different platform.
I am more laid back when I read Ratzinger than a blog. In that sense.

And I fully understand.

My sources are 2000 years of Catholic teaching, as presented, as well as fact and reason, also presented.

 

[dudleysharp]

The Catholic Church does not “support” the death penalty…what it does support is the right of the state to have recourse to use the death penalty

Had you read my reviews, you would find overwhelming Church support for the death penalty.

Three of countless examples:

Saint (& Pope) Pius V, “The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder.” “The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent” (1566).

Paramount obedience.

Archbishop Charles Chaput: “Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment . . . " “The Church cannot repudiate (the death penalty) without repudiating her own identity.” (3)

From the newest Catholic Catechism

CCC 2260 The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God’s gift of human life and man’s murderous violence:

“For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning. . . . Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

. . . the source for which is the Noahic Covenant, Genesis 9:6, an eternal command, for all peoples and all times, which establishes the sacredness of life as the foundation for death penalty support.

 

[Ender]

A contradiction would be something to the effect that the death penalty was intrinsically evil. The comments made over the last forty years do not take this approach or make this claim. Rather, the teacher (the popes) is applying a principles to modern situations.

Exactly so. This is what makes the “teaching” a prudential judgment and not a doctrine.*“Prudential” has a technical theological meaning… It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications…
Which is why we are not bound to accept it.…Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. *(Cardinal Dulles)

All of the talk of the past, one hundred percent of it, is not relevant.

While none of the comments from the past are relevant to prudential choices taken today, all of them are relevant to the doctrine, which is that the State may use capital punishment. There is no moral objection to its normal use.

The Church does not teach and has never taught something as Machiavellian as a murder* must* be put to death and that letting such a one to live is intrinsically sinful.

True, although she has said that murderers *ought *to be put to death she has always recognized that circumstances might make such punishment inadvisable. That is the objection today, that it is inadvisable, not that it is immoral.

Ender

 

[irenaeus1]

Exactly so. This is what makes the “teaching” a prudential judgment and not a doctrine.*“Prudential” has a technical theological meaning… It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications…
Which is why we are not bound to accept it.…Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. *(Cardinal Dulles)
While none of the comments from the past are relevant to prudential choices taken today, all of them are relevant to the doctrine, which is that the State may use capital punishment. There is no moral objection to its normal use.
True, although she has said that murderers *ought *to be put to death she has always recognized that circumstances might make such punishment inadvisable. That is the objection today, that it is inadvisable, not that it is immoral.

Ender

Except that with the current pope tying capital punishment to being a violation of the 5th Commandment, he seems to be trying to make it as though capital punishment is indeed immoral.

 

[Ender]

Except that with the current pope tying capital punishment to being a violation of the 5th Commandment, he seems to be trying to make it as though capital punishment is indeed immoral.

I realize he made that association, but I think it has been pointed out that his assertion is simply incorrect. By saying that life is inviolate in all situations he abrogates not just church doctrine on capital punishment, but on just wars and even killing in self defense. He overstepped himself with that comment. His claim is not accurate.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

Except that with the current pope tying capital punishment to being a violation of the 5th Commandment, he seems to be trying to make it as though capital punishment is indeed immoral.

That is because it can be. An action may not be intrinsically evil, or morally neutral, yet still be immoral in some instances. Civil divorce comes to mind, though there are many examples.

 

[graciew]

I realize he made that association, but I think it has been pointed out that his assertion is simply incorrect. By saying that life is inviolate in all situations he abrogates not just church doctrine on capital punishment, but on just wars and even killing in self defense. He overstepped himself with that comment. His claim is not accurate.

Ender

He said it was inadmissible.
And it is tied to he fifth comma dment. There are explanations in the CCC under Life in Christ- Love Your neighbour as yourself - The fifth Commandment
. We cannot deny that it is to kill ,and pretend it is not and we all understand no one is going against self defense.

The strange thing is that he is also speaking to people in Saudi Arabia ,North Korea and places where CP is law.

He is speaking to them too.
Why would he not ?

 He said it was inadmissible.

He is correct to express it and he has not overstepped it.
Look at the countries that still have CP and we later talk…
And I sound bossy ,I know….but as I know you too I am.more tempted to say : Make it inadmissible ! You can and it would be sooo advisable…

 

[irenaeus1]

That is because it can be. An action may not be intrinsically evil, or morally neutral, yet still be immoral in some instances. Civil divorce comes to mind, though there are many examples.

But he said ‘absolute’.

 

[graciew]

But he said ‘absolute’.

Life is sacred. That in in the CCC.
Jesus is the Way and the Truth and the Life.
That is why we are prolife.
Either we understand what we are doing or not.

My life is not more sacred than or less sacred than yours. No matter what. You are my brother. And our dignity is anchored above.

God gives life and God takes it.

And it does not mean that it is ok not to defend ourselves,
And if it is understood that there has been a change in 2000 years of what to kill is,then I do not understand any more.

Does not seem that complicated for me,Ireneus.

 

[Ender]

Life is sacred.

Of course it is, but that’s different than being inviolate in all situations. It is precisely because life is sacred that the penalty for wrongfully taking it is death.

God gives life and God takes it.

Yes he does, however*…that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. *(Catechism of St. Thomas)

And it does not mean that it is ok not to defend ourselves,

Either life is inviolate or it isn’t. If it is then you have no right to kill someone even in self defense, countries have no moral right to have armies, and even the police have no right to carry firearms.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

But he said ‘absolute’.

This is proof-texting a single word?

If context is critical, then it is even more so for a single word, in this case and adjective, a modifier. It is meaningless without know what word is modified. It did not modify “prohibition against capital punishment” or “sin”. The quote was:

“The commandment “You shall not kill,” hasabsolute** value** and applies to both the innocent and the guilty.”

The value of taught in this commandment is absolute in that this **value **applies to every human being. The Church has always taught the inherent value of every human life, that even the worst of us are deserving of human dignity.

This thread is a good example of why skepticism should be our default reaction when someone comes out condemning the Pope as not being a theologically good Catholic.

 

[Ender]

This is proof-texting a single word?

You call it proof-texting; it seems more like understanding its common meaning.

If context is critical, then it is even more so for a single word, in this case and adjective, a modifier. It is meaningless without know what word is modified. It did not modify “prohibition against capital punishment” or “sin”. The quote was:

“The commandment “You shall not kill,” has absolute** value** and applies to both the innocent and the guilty.”

If Francis’ comment is written like this*“The commandment “You shall not kill,”… applies to both the innocent and the guilty,”
*is the meaning altered?

The value of taught in this commandment is absolute in that this **value **applies to every human being.

What I can’t understand is how you are interpreting the pope’s comment. Either he is saying the commandment not to kill applies equally to the guilty as well as the innocent, which is the interpretation everyone in the world gives it (and therefore represents the repudiation of 2000 years of church teaching), or it is merely an incomprehensible way of repeating what the church already believes, in which case it contains absolutely nothing new. Which is it?

The Church has always taught the inherent value of every human life, that even the worst of us are deserving of human dignity.

This is true. It is also the reason why the life of a murderer is forfeit.

This thread is a good example of why skepticism should be our default reaction when someone comes out condemning the Pope as not being a theologically good Catholic.

The one thing that cannot be done here is to separate killing in capital punishment from killing in self defense and in war. These three situations stand or fall together.

Ender

 

[graciew]

Of course it is, but that’s different than being inviolate in all situations. It is precisely because life is sacred that the penalty for wrongfully taking it is death.
Yes he does, however*…that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. *(Catechism of St. Thomas)
Either life is inviolate or it isn’t. If it is then you have no right to kill someone even in self defense, countries have no moral right to have armies, and even the police have no right to carry firearms.

Ender

We are ascending to Heaven as a people of God.

To begin with , I ask for forgiveness for the times sb has had to expose his/her life for my useless stuff.
There is shame in that and I am willing to.acknowledge that muddy side. And owed gratitude.
That ,I can understand now ,and it is also in the CCC when one scrolls down.
We have rights and also duties.
Because the life of somebody who takes care of mine in the little and the big is as dear to God as mine.
So to begin with ,when the CCC says " may recourse" to DP when I have seen that as a concession and we have talked it with you , I tend to believe that it is better to start going through our own.
What have I possibly done so that a fallen brother may walk embracing his/her cross and not keep him/ her stuck in the mud?
I ve got many questions to myself before saying go ahead , recourse to it.
There is also this differring death in years ,so many that it may also mean the death of somebody who could be already restored at least to a life to see his own even behind bars ? How much effort have we put to give peace to the victims and their families that we have done all and more in our hands ? I do not know.Forgivess is a big job…
But you and I ,in our talks have come to the point where you understand retribution and death in a different way.
And we have both come to respect our differing points of view. That ,I also remember from our talks.
I am trying to be honest. Recipes ,very few…

 

[Ender]

But you and I ,in our talks have come to the point where you understand retribution and death in a different way.

A different understanding of retribution is surely the source of my disagreements not just with you but with most of those with whom I debate this subject. If we cannot achieve a common understanding of what retribution is we can never come to any agreement about capital punishment in particular, or even punishment in general.

Sin deserves punishment. The one who sins has earned the just punishment he receives, and it is not a matter of mercy to excuse his punishment. God himself does not eliminate punishing us even after he has forgiven us. I think the whole concept of the validity of punishment is collapsing, nor has 2267 helped in this regard. By tying the use of capital punishment to the need to protect society, the implication is made that punishment in general is based not on whether it is just but on whether our safety requires it, and those are two very different concepts.

Ender

 

[graciew]

A different understanding of retribution is surely the source of my disagreements not just with you but with most of those with whom I debate this subject. If we cannot achieve a common understanding of what retribution is we can never come to any agreement about capital punishment in particular, or even punishment in general.

Sin deserves punishment. The one who sins has earned the just punishment he receives, and it is not a matter of mercy to excuse his punishment. God himself does not eliminate punishing us even after he has forgiven us. I think the whole concept of the validity of punishment is collapsing, nor has 2267 helped in this regard. By tying the use of capital punishment to the need to protect society, the implication is made that punishment in general is based not on whether it is just but on whether our safety requires it, and those are two very different concepts.

Ender

It is just already when a person is behind bars. That is already a punishment.
Well, we can scroll down in the CCC until safeguarding peace and we may see a different connection to safety if you wish.
But here and now,God is present and when peace is safeguarded without recourse to CP, how is retribution not present while alive?
My " wrestling " with you,is that Life beats all. We ve got to understand what Life is,well or try hard. Life in the soul,life in the body…Life in Christ
And above all,help each other see how very responsible we are to take care of it . There are openings to help prisoners out and visit and Confession…that is feasable right here and now.

Here is the Catholic dictionaryCatholic Dictionary

Term

RETRIBUTION

Definition

A penalty or reward that a person deserves for moral conduct. Its basis is the divine justice that repays each person according to his or her workds. Retribution more generally refers to punishment for sin, but theologically it also means the merit that a person gains for free co-operation with divine grace. More often retribution is understood to belong to etermity, yet already in this life divine justice is acting, even when the punishment is tempered by God’s mercy. (Etym. Latin retributio, recompense, restitution; from retribuere, to give back, restore.)

.
And if you feel there is no new light to your thought,I am willing to call a " water break" and let time and prayer work. Cause sometimes that is what we need,and some peace to listen.
Bless you,Ender.